Does a business that advertises itself as a gun free zone deserve to be attacked?

[RWNJ]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

 

[mdk]

No, the business doesn't deserve to be attacked.

 

[PredFan]

Yes it is. No one deserves it but they are most likely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. Nobody in that restaurant should be attacked. I'm already seeing some childish responses on the subject.

Nobody in that restaurant should be attacked due to the positions the establishment has on guns. So knock it off.

 

[Pogo]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

Criminals don't give a shit about "gun free zones".
Perhaps a better idea would be "myth free zones".

 

[Mr. H.]

I most often continue on and enter places of business that post the "no gun" signs. My exceptions are schools and nursing homes.

A couple of days ago, I attended an auction and saw no such sign posted on the building. After I was in there for several minutes, I browsed the bulletin that was posted INSIDE next to the door. Sure enough, there it was.

So I told the girl that the sign should be on the OUTSIDE of the building. I said "I'll be right back", and went to the parking lot and locked my pistol in the glove box.

 

[S.J.]

They don't deserve to be attacked just because they're stupid.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does a business that advertises itself as a gun free zone deserve to be attacked?


Of course not.

On the other hand....

If a business advertises itself as a "Gun Free Zone" and puts up signs forbidding customers from bringing guns inside...

...and some whacko barges in, holds up the customers, and then shoots one....

..should that customer (or his next of kin) sue the business for depriving the customer of his right to defend himself and then failing to protect the unarmed customer, resulting in his injury or death?

Obviously the person most at fault is the whacko who pulled the trigger.

But does the business deserve at least some liability for what happened?

If a business forbids customers the right to carry the means to defend themselves, is the business then responsible for defending them instead?

 

[Clementine]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

No one deserves it, but they are making themselves an easy target. Of course, psychos prefer that. This is the one type of attack that the left doesn't blame on the victim.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

'deserve'? no, of course not
being an idiot doesn't mean you deserve to be killed.


lose business? yea, fuck you for being retarded.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the business doesn't deserve to be attacked.

Maybe in some abstract sense it doesn't, but in the real world it does.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Does a business that advertises itself as a gun free zone deserve to be attacked?


Of course not.

On the other hand....

If a business advertises itself as a "Gun Free Zone" and puts up signs forbidding customers from bringing guns inside...

...and some whacko barges in, holds up the customers, and then shoots one....

..should that customer (or his next of kin) sue the business for depriving the customer of his right to defend himself and then failing to protect the unarmed customer, resulting in his injury or death?

Obviously the person most at fault is the whacko who pulled the trigger.

But does the business deserve at least some liability for what happened?

If a business forbids customers the right to carry the means to defend themselves, is the business then responsible for defending them instead?

No that is absolutely idiotic. Are you mentally challenged?

 

[bripat9643]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

'deserve'? no, of course not
being an idiot doesn't mean you deserve to be killed.


lose business? yea, fuck you for being retarded.

The law of nature says being an idiot is a reason you deserve to be killed.

 

[mdk]

No, the business doesn't deserve to be attacked.

Maybe in some abstract sense it doesn't, but in the real world it does.

No, not in any world.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

'deserve'? no, of course not
being an idiot doesn't mean you deserve to be killed.


lose business? yea, fuck you for being retarded.

The law of nature says being an idiot is a reason you deserve to be killed.

You know that you are an idiot, don't you?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

'deserve'? no, of course not
being an idiot doesn't mean you deserve to be killed.


lose business? yea, fuck you for being retarded.

The law of nature says being an idiot is a reason you deserve to be killed.

The law of reality says your fascist intentions are not tolerated

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

Right. Banks that don't allow guys carrying sawed off shotguns to walk in unchallenged deserve to be robbed.

lol. this is great week for idiocy around here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

'deserve'? no, of course not
being an idiot doesn't mean you deserve to be killed.


lose business? yea, fuck you for being retarded.

The law of nature says being an idiot is a reason you deserve to be killed.

Are you threatening Ben Carson?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does a business that advertises itself as a gun free zone deserve to be attacked?


Of course not.

On the other hand....

If a business advertises itself as a "Gun Free Zone" and puts up signs forbidding customers from bringing guns inside...

...and some whacko barges in, holds up the customers, and then shoots one....

..should that customer (or his next of kin) sue the business for depriving the customer of his right to defend himself and then failing to protect the unarmed customer, resulting in his injury or death?

Obviously the person most at fault is the whacko who pulled the trigger.

But does the business deserve at least some liability for what happened?

If a business forbids customers the right to carry the means to defend themselves, is the business then responsible for defending them instead?

We have a customer that has a worker with a part-time job as a CCW instructor. He told me one such case already happened. A man was attacked in the parking lot of a business with one of those signs, and the court ruled in favor of the complainant. I didn't look the case up or anything like that, so I'm assuming this guy knows what he's talking about.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Think about it. If you're a criminal looking for a place to rob, or a terrorist looking for a "soft" target, who do you think they're going to go after? A gun free sign is just asking for trouble. Isn't it?

Criminals don't give a shit about "gun free zones".
Perhaps a better idea would be "myth free zones".

What kind of myths, like mass shootings mostly happen in gun free zones?